In a fundraising speech, Mitt said that the Palestinians don’t want peace. Period. But then he went on with details to explain how the situation with the borders presents a security concern for Israel. see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/mitt-romney-palestine-video_n_1892862.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Certainly some radical elements don’t want peace and even the mainstream is not going to be for peace while they feel they are victims of occupation. But to make it sound like they don’t want a settlement is to dismiss the Palestinians as another group of people who can’t be dealt with and who he can’t be bothered to worry about. He admits that it’s a complex situation but fails to mention the radicals on the Israeli side who would push to destroy Palestian settlements regardless of where they sit and replace them with Jewish ones – and who would never allow the Palestinians a state, whether the capital was to be in E. Jerusalem or not. He knows that situation it is a tinderbox. He should respect that dealing with the parties involved is like handling a loaded weapon with a light trigger pull. But clearly he does not.
It appears that he did not mention relocating the US embassy in that speech, but it is time someone gets him on record regarding the waiver of the Jerusalem Embassy Act. The rhetoric seems to indicate that he would be the first president to skip the waiver and allow the act to go into force. This would be a catastrophe plain and simple.
So here it is: Yes or no, if you were president, would you waive the Jerusalem Embassy Act, knowing what you know today (that is, barring some hidden obstacle in the security briefs)?